Sick of narrative that lockdowns were pointless

[Bagzzz]

I think lots of people are forgetting quite how scary the early days were, overwhelmed hospitals and exhausted (and now a lot burnt out) medical staff.

Many mistakes were made and some things that might have have been avoided but we know with the benefit of hindsight.
Scientists if not politicians were doing their best.

Maybe could distinguish later lockdowns but they weren’t done lightly either, knowing it would affect mental health and business.

@Shoecleaner

And then if they don’t and won’t? You end up with full hospitals - and that impacts everyone.

I’ll give the example again of the two 30 year olds I know. Both no idea they’d contract it so badly, both thought they were infallible. Both were anti lockdown and against rules. Both needed emergency hospital treatment, one an ambulance. In hospital together - so had to find care for their potentially infectious 2 year old. Then complete turn around on a lengthy FB post advising everyone to be careful!

@Shoecleaner Yes sorry, i got that wrong, its 2/3rd's over weight OR obese, not just obese.

Though if we are to believe Boris J's CV experience, he puts that down to being over weight.

Yes people should take care of themselves, would help us all but they don't and even at 27%, thats approx 20m people who would be very badly hit by Covid, how would the economy and the NHS cope with that many off work and/or in hospital?

Yeah well we don’t base things on anecdotes. The data is very clear about who is affected by Covid.

(and if we’re doing anecdotes now, I have plenty of those about a couple of my elderly and overweight relatives - unvaccinated - who got it and weren’t even hospitalised. But I know they had elevated risk and would still recommend vaccines for these groups …)

@MintyFreshOne

As you like data.

8000 nhs staff off sick with covid each and every day, they have to present with symptoms & will get a PCR test, so they aren't swing the lead.

& thats before we look at flu and what that will cause as it hits, record numbers in hospitals with that too, despite an extensive flu vaccination program.

Will also be across the national workforce, so fewer workers in other sectors too, esp hard hit will be care, so more patients stuck in hospital.

Maybe now you can see what problems your ideas would cause?

And lockdowns will do what, exactly, to prevent any of that?

You know that the US doesn’t have such severe problems with hospital capacity, don’t you? They choose to have overcapacity (and pay dearly for it) and the UK chooses undercapacity.

Obviously ppl are ok with it, because the Tories have been in power a long time.

"its 2/3rd's over weight OR obese, not just obese"

And yet takeaways were open and gyms were shut.

I’m obese and basically had a runny nose for a couple of days when I had Covid. I’m sure if I hadn’t been vaccinated it might have been different though. It’s radically changed things

And politicians were telling us we could have an hour outdoors per day. Contrary to the law.
Then Hancock lied about vitamin D not being helpful.
Anyone would have thought they wanted the population to come out the other side LESS healthy!

Yes people should take care of themselves, would help us all but they don't and even at 27%, thats approx 20m people who would be very badly hit by Covid, how would the economy and the NHS cope with that many off work and/or in hospital?

No, that is not 27% of the population that would need hospital or even be very badly hit if they caught Covid. Obesity can increase the risk of severe illness but it is not a given.
I am obese and unvaccinated, and breezed through Covid.
There were people in their 90s that also breezed through it, despite many shouting that if you are over 80 and caught it, you would die.

I ask you—why is it such a problem to allow low-risk groups to live and work normally during a pandemic?

Because you can't stop the diseases they spread going through the higher-risk population who will require medical treatment and hospitalisation. And some of those people are the 'low risk' ones because they don't realise they're going to get it badly! The main problem is that it just wouldn't work.

A secondary issue is that words like 'allow low-risk groups to live and work normally' also clearly imply 'not allowing high-risk groups to live and work normally' - otherwise you're just saying you want to allow everyone to live normally. If you don't want to have to fill hospitals with people who are ill you have to stop them getting covid one way or another.

Not very well hidden behind this question is the idea that low risk groups don't need precautions and high risk groups don't deserve them, and low risk people deserve as few limits on their freedom as possible and high risk people are fundamentally less deserving.

A secondary issue is that words like 'allow low-risk groups to live and work normally' also clearly imply 'not allowing high-risk groups to live and work normally' - otherwise you're just saying you want to allow everyone to live normally

I do want everyone who wants to live normally to live normally. You can advise higher risk groups to perhaps exercise caution in social situations or avoid public areas, but I don’t want people banned (though all too many wanted to see unvaccinated banned from public spaces …)

If you don't want to have to fill hospitals with people who are ill you have to stop them getting covid one way or another

You can’t. Everyone will get Covid, multiple times.

Not very well hidden behind this question is the idea that low risk groups don't need precautions

They don’t need forced into precautions, no. But they are free to do so if they wish.

high risk groups don't deserve them and low risk people deserve as few limits on their freedom as possible and high risk people are fundamentally less deserving

The GBD was all about prioritising high-risk groups so this doesn’t wash. Some
examples include getting seniors vaccinated first (over lower risk health care workers), high-grade air filters to care homes over schools, etc

Well for all our mixing it isn’t covid clogging up the hospitals right now it’s flu!

Doesn't that happen every year anyway?

I live in the Southern Hemisphere. It's summer and the flu season, thankfully, is over. Our hospitals are struggling though ... with Covid patients. I'm just getting over my first bout of Covid as a CEV person. For me, it has been worse than flu - and even worse than RSV that I had during the year too.

This happened all the time pre pandemic and nothing was ever said. The vulnerable catch pneumonia/flu/colds every single year and some sadly pass away. Non vulnerable people weren't expected to not go out or overly take precautions. Life goes on . I agree with the first lockdown but sadly the very elderly and vulnerable are sometimes going to catch colds/flu/COVID/pneumonia it's just the way it is.

It was a global pandemic so it was a shit time that noone enjoyed. I think people just need to get over the fact that sometimes, some stuff, like a global pandemic, are largely shit and no matter what the response taken, no matter how effective or ineffective, cannot make a shit situation a good one. No point armchair commentating for years after the event as to how we would do it better and everyone else got it wrong, etc.

The lying cheating politicians are a different kettle of fish. That's a separate issue.

If anyone is interested in the facts avout this, there is a report out which says that the lockdowns had almost no effect saving lives (basically norhing) but caused massive harms, Neil Ferguson's modelling being completely off again and causing terrible harms.

Link to the report here: https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

It's great we are able to actually talk about these things here with the real facts, not just the 'facts' and 'science' supplied by the government which have been shown to be utter nonsense (and were obvously at the time) but strangely supported very strongly by certain posters on here.

That report is from a right wing pressure group. I really don't think it adds one iota to the debate.

It reports peer reviewed studies (The authors, including Professor Steve H. Hanke of the Johns Hopkins University). Is this going to be a thread where some peer reviewed studies are 'scence' but others aren't?

For people who don't want to click the link, it's all evidence based and says things like this:

• COVID-19 lockdowns were “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions,” according to this peer-reviewed new academic study. The draconian policy failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing substantial social, cultural, and economic costs.
• The comprehensive 220-page book, began with a systematic review of 19,646 potentially relevant studies. For their meta-analysis, the authors’ screening resulted in the choice of 22 studies that are based on actual, measured mortality data, not on results derived from modelling exercises.

I disagree. If we don't learn from our mistakes we're doomed to repeat them. This is a bit like saying "well, Hitler was a homicidal maniac so it was always going to get ugly" without trying to make sure it never happens again. (Also, the definition of a pandemic was changed, traditionally a higher death rate was required).

@TruthAtLast

Sorry but a quick Wiki search on Steve Hanke shows he’s not exactly bias free and uncontroversial.

I think if we want the best outcome, looking at sources that are even more extreme and biased then the what is the generally held opinion worldwide - is likely to do more harm than good.

I agree than challenge is needed, but you can’t follow the challenge until it’s been proved by a whole host of unbiased - or as unbiased as possible - sources.

Particularly concerning when the challenge tends to be politically motivated. Always tends be be right wing and economic bias.

@TruthAtLast

It's great we are able to actually talk about these things here with the real facts, not just the 'facts' and 'science' supplied by the government which have been shown to be utter nonsense (and were obvously at the time) but strangely supported very strongly by certain posters on here.

So science is ... woo? But your facts are real facts?

@MyLostSock

I think that’s a really key point. Why is Steve Hanke the ‘one to listen to’ when a quick search shows how controversial he is.

Would you rather governments worldwide followed a) controversial science that has a political or economic bias and isn’t backed by peer review , or b) the collective opinion from a range of sources where there is peer review?